$G(x,y)G(y,z)$ independant of $y$ $implies$ Most general function form $G(x,y) = rH(x)/H(y)$ , $r$ a const.












1














I am reading Probability Theory, The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes; and encountered the following statement in his derivation of the product/chain rule (of probability) from basic principles:



$$(1),, frac partial {partial y}left(G(x,y)G(y,z)right)=0 implies G(x,y)=rfrac{H(x)}{H(y)}$$
for some constant $r$ without any loss of generality.



I am having trouble showing this. This question was already asked here by user56834, but received no answers.



After some 10-15 hours, I've only been able to arrive at:
$$(1) implies G(x,y)G(y,x) = K$$ for some constant $K$.



This is highly suggestibe, but I can't seem to prove that the final (fraction of same function) form is necessary.



Can some one help?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
    – Shaun
    Nov 25 '18 at 16:58






  • 1




    changed it, thanks.
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 17:05
















1














I am reading Probability Theory, The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes; and encountered the following statement in his derivation of the product/chain rule (of probability) from basic principles:



$$(1),, frac partial {partial y}left(G(x,y)G(y,z)right)=0 implies G(x,y)=rfrac{H(x)}{H(y)}$$
for some constant $r$ without any loss of generality.



I am having trouble showing this. This question was already asked here by user56834, but received no answers.



After some 10-15 hours, I've only been able to arrive at:
$$(1) implies G(x,y)G(y,x) = K$$ for some constant $K$.



This is highly suggestibe, but I can't seem to prove that the final (fraction of same function) form is necessary.



Can some one help?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
    – Shaun
    Nov 25 '18 at 16:58






  • 1




    changed it, thanks.
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 17:05














1












1








1







I am reading Probability Theory, The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes; and encountered the following statement in his derivation of the product/chain rule (of probability) from basic principles:



$$(1),, frac partial {partial y}left(G(x,y)G(y,z)right)=0 implies G(x,y)=rfrac{H(x)}{H(y)}$$
for some constant $r$ without any loss of generality.



I am having trouble showing this. This question was already asked here by user56834, but received no answers.



After some 10-15 hours, I've only been able to arrive at:
$$(1) implies G(x,y)G(y,x) = K$$ for some constant $K$.



This is highly suggestibe, but I can't seem to prove that the final (fraction of same function) form is necessary.



Can some one help?










share|cite|improve this question















I am reading Probability Theory, The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes; and encountered the following statement in his derivation of the product/chain rule (of probability) from basic principles:



$$(1),, frac partial {partial y}left(G(x,y)G(y,z)right)=0 implies G(x,y)=rfrac{H(x)}{H(y)}$$
for some constant $r$ without any loss of generality.



I am having trouble showing this. This question was already asked here by user56834, but received no answers.



After some 10-15 hours, I've only been able to arrive at:
$$(1) implies G(x,y)G(y,x) = K$$ for some constant $K$.



This is highly suggestibe, but I can't seem to prove that the final (fraction of same function) form is necessary.



Can some one help?







functional-equations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 25 '18 at 17:05

























asked Nov 25 '18 at 16:44









3dot

83




83












  • MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
    – Shaun
    Nov 25 '18 at 16:58






  • 1




    changed it, thanks.
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 17:05


















  • MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
    – Shaun
    Nov 25 '18 at 16:58






  • 1




    changed it, thanks.
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 17:05
















MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
– Shaun
Nov 25 '18 at 16:58




MathJax works in the title section, don't you know?
– Shaun
Nov 25 '18 at 16:58




1




1




changed it, thanks.
– 3dot
Nov 25 '18 at 17:05




changed it, thanks.
– 3dot
Nov 25 '18 at 17:05










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














Ignoring questions of division by 0, you can write $$frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,1)}frac{G(y,z)}{G(1,z)}=1$$ and hence each of the ratios $G(x,y)/{G(x,1)}$ and $G(y,z)/{G(1,z)}$ is independent of $x$ and of $z$. Hence $G(x,y)/G(x,1)$ is a function of $y$ alone; call it $h(y)$. So we know $G(x,y)=g(x)h(y),$ using the shorthand $g(x)=G(x,1)$. So now we know $g(x)h(y)g(y)h(z),$ which equals $G(x,y)G(y,z),$ is independent of $y$. That is, $h(y)g(y)$ is a constant, so $h(y)=k/g(y)$, for some $k$, and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:05











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013064%2fgx-ygy-z-independant-of-y-implies-most-general-function-form-gx-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0














Ignoring questions of division by 0, you can write $$frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,1)}frac{G(y,z)}{G(1,z)}=1$$ and hence each of the ratios $G(x,y)/{G(x,1)}$ and $G(y,z)/{G(1,z)}$ is independent of $x$ and of $z$. Hence $G(x,y)/G(x,1)$ is a function of $y$ alone; call it $h(y)$. So we know $G(x,y)=g(x)h(y),$ using the shorthand $g(x)=G(x,1)$. So now we know $g(x)h(y)g(y)h(z),$ which equals $G(x,y)G(y,z),$ is independent of $y$. That is, $h(y)g(y)$ is a constant, so $h(y)=k/g(y)$, for some $k$, and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:05
















0














Ignoring questions of division by 0, you can write $$frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,1)}frac{G(y,z)}{G(1,z)}=1$$ and hence each of the ratios $G(x,y)/{G(x,1)}$ and $G(y,z)/{G(1,z)}$ is independent of $x$ and of $z$. Hence $G(x,y)/G(x,1)$ is a function of $y$ alone; call it $h(y)$. So we know $G(x,y)=g(x)h(y),$ using the shorthand $g(x)=G(x,1)$. So now we know $g(x)h(y)g(y)h(z),$ which equals $G(x,y)G(y,z),$ is independent of $y$. That is, $h(y)g(y)$ is a constant, so $h(y)=k/g(y)$, for some $k$, and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:05














0












0








0






Ignoring questions of division by 0, you can write $$frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,1)}frac{G(y,z)}{G(1,z)}=1$$ and hence each of the ratios $G(x,y)/{G(x,1)}$ and $G(y,z)/{G(1,z)}$ is independent of $x$ and of $z$. Hence $G(x,y)/G(x,1)$ is a function of $y$ alone; call it $h(y)$. So we know $G(x,y)=g(x)h(y),$ using the shorthand $g(x)=G(x,1)$. So now we know $g(x)h(y)g(y)h(z),$ which equals $G(x,y)G(y,z),$ is independent of $y$. That is, $h(y)g(y)$ is a constant, so $h(y)=k/g(y)$, for some $k$, and so on.






share|cite|improve this answer












Ignoring questions of division by 0, you can write $$frac{G(x,y)}{G(x,1)}frac{G(y,z)}{G(1,z)}=1$$ and hence each of the ratios $G(x,y)/{G(x,1)}$ and $G(y,z)/{G(1,z)}$ is independent of $x$ and of $z$. Hence $G(x,y)/G(x,1)$ is a function of $y$ alone; call it $h(y)$. So we know $G(x,y)=g(x)h(y),$ using the shorthand $g(x)=G(x,1)$. So now we know $g(x)h(y)g(y)h(z),$ which equals $G(x,y)G(y,z),$ is independent of $y$. That is, $h(y)g(y)$ is a constant, so $h(y)=k/g(y)$, for some $k$, and so on.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 25 '18 at 21:38









kimchi lover

9,65131128




9,65131128












  • Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:05


















  • Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
    – 3dot
    Nov 25 '18 at 22:05
















Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
– 3dot
Nov 25 '18 at 22:05




Thank you! I was about to start trying to show that for $U(x,y) = ln(G(x,y))$, $U_1(x,y) = -U_2(y,x)$ for all $x, y$, and that $U_1,_2(x,y) = 0$, but your approach is so much more elegant!
– 3dot
Nov 25 '18 at 22:05


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013064%2fgx-ygy-z-independant-of-y-implies-most-general-function-form-gx-y%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...